DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The present application, filed 22 January 2025, is a Continuation of U.S. Patent App. No. 17/985,215, filed 11 November 2022, and claims benefit to Provisional Patent App. No. 63/278,817, filed 12 November 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 26 March 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, the examiner notes that the IDS filed 26 March 2025 is empty and contains no references.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12275154 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference patent fully anticipate the present claims. See the table below for further details.
Present Application
U.S. Patent No. 12275154
1. A robot comprising:
a body;
at least one actuatable member;
at least one support structure coupled to the at least one actuatable member, wherein the support structure is actuatable between a stowed configuration in which the support structure is stowed and a support configuration in which the support structure supports the at least one actuatable member;
a fragile member;
at least one processor;
at least one sensor communicatively coupled to the at least one processor;
at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the robot to:
detect, by the at least one processor, a fall event of the body based on sensor data from the at least one sensor; and
in response to detecting the fall event:
actuate the fragile member to a defensive configuration which protects the fragile member from damage during the fall event;
actuate the at least one actuatable member to a protective configuration which protects the fragile member from damage during the fall event; and
actuate the at least one support structure from the stowed configuration to the support configuration to protect the at least one actuatable member from damage during the fall event.
1. A robot comprising:
a body;
at least one actuatable member comprising an arm member including an elbow portion;
a fragile member comprising a hand-shaped end effector coupled to the body by the arm member;
at least one processor;
at least one sensor communicatively coupled to the at least one processor;
at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the robot to:
detect, by the at least one processor, a fall event of the body based on sensor data from the at least one sensor; and
in response to detecting the fall event;
actuate the hand-shaped end effector to move towards the body in a defensive configuration which protects the fragile member from damage during the fall event; and
actuate the arm member to extend the elbow portion away from the body in a protective configuration which protects the fragile member from damage during the fall event.
9. The robot of claim 1, further comprising at least one support structure coupled to the at least one actuatable member which protects the at least one actuatable member from damage during the fall event.
13. The robot of claim 9, wherein: the support structure is actuatable between a stowed configuration in which the support structure is stowed, and a support configuration in which the support structure supports the at least one actuatable member; and the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the robot to, in response to detecting the fall event, actuate the at least one support structure from the stowed configuration to the support configuration.
2. The robot of claim 1, wherein the defensive configuration is a contracted configuration.
2. The robot of claim 1, wherein the defensive configuration is a contracted configuration.
3. The robot of claim 1, wherein: the fragile member includes an end effector comprising a plurality of finger-shaped members coupled to a palm-shaped member; and the defensive configuration is a fist-shaped configuration.
3. The robot of claim 1, wherein: the hand-shaped end effector comprises a plurality of finger-shaped members coupled to a palm-shaped member; and the defensive configuration is a fist-shaped configuration.
4. The robot of claim 1, wherein the processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the robot to actuate the at least one actuatable member to a protective configuration cause the at least one actuatable member to extend from the body to an extended configuration which braces the body during the fall event.
4. The robot of claim 1, wherein; the processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the robot to actuate the arm member to extend the elbow portion away from the body in a protective configuration cause the elbow portion of the arm member to brace the body during the fall event.
5. The robot of claim 1, wherein: the fragile member includes a plurality of fragile members; the at least one actuatable member includes a plurality of actuatable members; and the processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the robot to actuate the at least one actuatable member to a protective configuration which protects the fragile member from damage during the fall event cause the robot to: actuate each actuatable member of the plurality of actuatable members to a respective protective configuration which protects a respective fragile member of the plurality of fragile members from damage during the fall event.
6. The robot of claim 1, wherein: the fragile member includes a plurality of fragile members; the at least one actuatable member includes a plurality of actuatable members; and the processor-executable instructions-which, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the robot to: actuate each actuatable member of the plurality of actuatable members to a respective protective configuration which protects a respective fragile member of the plurality of fragile members from damage during the fall event.
6. The robot of claim 1, wherein the defensive configuration is a contracted configuration, and the protective configuration is an extended configuration.
7. The robot of claim 1, wherein the defensive configuration is a contracted configuration, and the protective configuration is an extended configuration.
7. The robot of claim 1, wherein: the fragile member comprises an end effector coupled to the body by the at least one actuatable member; the processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the robot to actuate the fragile member to a defensive configuration cause the robot to actuate the fragile member to move towards the body; and the processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the robot to actuate the at least one actuatable member to a protective configuration cause the robot to actuate the at least one actuatable member to extend away from the body.
1. A robot comprising: a body; at least one actuatable member comprising an arm member including an elbow portion; a fragile member comprising a hand-shaped end effector coupled to the body by the arm member; at least one processor; at least one sensor communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the robot to: detect, by the at least one processor, a fall event of the body based on sensor data from the at least one sensor; and in response to detecting the fall event; actuate the hand-shaped end effector to move towards the body in a defensive configuration which protects the fragile member from damage during the fall event; and actuate the arm member to extend the elbow portion away from the body in a protective configuration which protects the fragile member from damage during the fall event.
8. The robot of claim 7, wherein: the fragile member comprises a hand-shaped end effector; the at least one actuatable member comprises an arm member including an elbow portion; the hand-shaped end effector is coupled to the body by the arm member; the processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the robot to actuate the fragile member to a defensive configuration cause the robot to actuate the hand-shaped end effector to move towards the body; and the processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the robot to actuate the at least one actuatable member to a protective configuration cause the robot to actuate the arm member to extend the elbow portion away from the body.
5. The robot of claim 1, wherein: the arm member comprises at least one support member; and the processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the robot to actuate the arm member to extend the elbow portion away from the body in a protective configuration cause the support member to extend from a stowed configuration to a support configuration which braces the fragile member during the fall event.
9. The robot of claim 8, wherein: the hand-shaped member includes two hand-shaped members; and the at least one arm member includes two arm members.
8. The robot of claim 1, wherein: the hand-shaped member includes two hand-shaped members; and the at least one arm member includes two arm members.
10. The robot of claim 1, wherein the at least one support structure is selected from a group of structures consisting of: at least one pad; at least one pedestal; and at least one spring.
10. The robot of claim 9, wherein the at least one support structure is selected from a group of structures consisting of: at least one pad; at least one pedestal; and at least one spring.
11. The robot of claim 1, wherein: the at least one actuatable member comprises an arm member having an elbow portion; and the at least one support structure comprises at least one elbow pad positioned at or proximate the elbow portion.
11. The robot of claim 9, wherein; the at least one support structure comprises at least one elbow pad positioned at or proximate the elbow portion.
12. The robot of claim 11, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the robot to, in response to detecting the fall event: actuate the elbow pad to cover the elbow portion.
12. The robot of claim 11, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the robot to, in response to detecting the fall event: actuate the elbow pad to cover the elbow portion.
13. The robot of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one sensor selected from a group of sensors consisting of: an accelerometer; a gyroscope; an inertial measurement unit; a visual sensor; a LIDAR sensor; an audio sensor; and a tactile sensor.
14. The robot of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one sensor selected from a group of sensors consisting of: an accelerometer; a gyroscope; an inertial measurement unit; a visual sensor; a LIDAR sensor; an audio sensor; and a tactile sensor.
14. The robot of claim 1, further comprising two actuatable leg members, wherein the two actuatable leg members are actuatable to move the robot by bipedal motion.
15. The robot of claim 1, further comprising two actuatable leg members, wherein the two actuatable leg members are actuatable to move the robot by bipedal motion.
As shown above, the claims of the reference patent fully anticipate the present claims.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are not being rejected under prior art at this time (though they remain subject to the double patenting rejection detailed above).
Regarding claim 1, the closest pieces of prior art are Lee (US 20120245735 A1), Laville (US 20170043486 A1), Liu et al. ("A Rollover Strategy for Wrist Damage Reduction in a Forward Falling Humanoid"), Cui et al. ("Human inspired fall arrest strategy for humanoid robots based on stiffness ellipsoid optimization"), Yun (US 20140288705 A1), Gouaillier (US 20130231822 A1), Kamon (US 20230014536 A1), Ha et al. ("Multiple Contact Planning for Minimizing Damage of Humanoid Falls"), Li et al. ("A minimized falling damage method for humanoid robots").
Lee teaches a method for controlling a robot during a fall, wherein the robot is controlled to respond to a fall by actuating its body depending on a determined body part onto which it is to fall.
Laville teaches an end effector for a humanoid robot, wherein the end effector emulates a hand, having fingers and a palm.
Liu teaches a strategy for wrist damage reduction in a robot, wherein the strategy includes rolling over in response to a fall.
Cui teaches fall prevention strategies for humanoid robots, specifically strategies for arresting a fall against a wall.
Yun teaches a fall control method for a robot, wherein the robot is controlled to achieve a “tripod” posture, wherein at least three points of contact are made with the ground in order to stabilize the robot.
Gouaillier teaches a humanoid robot capable of reacting to a fall with a predetermined set of fall strategies.
Kamon teaches a falling strategy for a humanoid robot, wherein a robot’s joints are arrested slowly when the robot is stopped using an emergency stop.
Ha teaches a falling strategy for a humanoid robot, wherein the robot generates a fall response based on a general algorithm depending on variables detected while falling.
Li teaches a study of human falling motion in determining optimal falling motions for a humanoid robot.
No reference, however, as a whole or in combination, teaches, discloses, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious:
A robot comprising:
A body;
At least one actuatable member;
At least one support structure coupled to the at least one actuatable member, wherein the support structure is actuatable between a stowed configuration in which the support structure is stowed and a support configuration in which the support structure supports the at least one actuatable member;
A fragile member;
At least one processor;
At least one sensor communicatively coupled to the at least one processor;
At least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the robot to:
Detect, by the at least one processor, a fall event of the body based on sensor data fr0om the at least one sensor; and
In response to detecting the fall event:
Actuate the fragile member to a defensive configuration which protects the fragile member from damage during the fall event;
Actuate the at least one actuatable member to a protective configuration which protects the fragile member from damage during the fall event; and
Actuate the at least one support structure from the stowed configuration to the support configuration to protect the at least one actuatable member from damage during the fall event.
Claims 2-14 are dependent on claim 1, and are similarly not being rejected over prior art (though they remain subject to the double patenting rejection as detailed above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BLAKE A WOOD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights